2025 Monster Manual to Introduce Male Versions of Hags, Medusas, and Dryads

The upcoming Monster Manual will feature artwork depicting some creatures like hags and medusas in both genders, a first for Dungeons & Dragons. In the "Everything You Need to Know" video for the upcoming Monster Manual, designers Jeremy Crawford and Wesley Schneider revealed that the new book would feature artwork portraying both male and female versions of creatures like hags, dryads, satyrs, and medusas. While there was a male medusa named Marlos Urnrayle in Princes of the Apocalypse (who had a portrait in the book) and players could make satyr PCs of either gender, this marks the first time that D&D has explicitly shown off several of these creatures as being of both male and female within a rulebook. There is no mechanical difference between male creatures and female creatures, so this is solely a change in how some monsters are presented.

In other news that actually does impact D&D mechanics, goblins are now classified as fey creatures (similar to how hobgoblins were portrayed as fey creatures in Monsters of the Multiverse) and gnolls are now classified as fiends.

Additionally, monster statblocks include potential treasure and gear options, so that DMs can reward loot when a player character inevitably searches the dead body of a creature.

The new Monster Manual will be released on February 18th, 2025.

 

[Zaukrie]

I would argue that any sentient being is a bad choice for this purpose . . .

However, that stance makes even fiends and undead (as usually presented) problematic . . . I'm still working around that . . .

I mean, without sentience, can you even be evil?

I get many don't agree, but this is an escape for my tables, and we like having unequivocally evil foes.

 

[TwoSix]

Animals are not inherently evil, and it’s debatable if they are even capable of evil.

But how much of an anthropomorphic animal's nature is based on being an anthromorphic animal?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we are discussing different things. I don't think animals are evil either (in truth I don't believe in the good or evil, but that is a different discussion); however, gnolls are not animals, so I don't get your point.

They’re anthropomorphic hyenas. Just because they’re anthropomorphic doesn’t mean people’s associations about hyenas won’t affect their views of gnolls. Likewise with any other anthropomorphic animal - people will bring baggage based on their feelings towards the animal. Therefore, any anthropomorphic animal is a bad choice for the designated Inherently Evil Sentient. There will always be lovers of the associated animal who object to the characterization.

 

[Bae'zel]

Animals are not inherently evil, and it’s debatable if they are even capable of evil.

You’ve obviously never seen footage of orcas playing with their still living, soon-to-be food.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, without sentience, can you even be evil?

Well, animals are sentient, and the existence and definition of evil are fraught questions. But, short answer, no, I don’t think non-sapient creatures can be evil.

I get many don't agree, but this is an escape for my tables, and we like having unequivocally evil foes.

That’s fine, I just don’t think any anthropomorphic animal (which would include gnolls) is a good choice for this. If there needs to be a Designated Evil Race, don’t make it a furry.

 

[Nightfly]

If there needs to be a Designated Evil Race, don’t make it a furry.

Some might say that nothing is more explicitly evil than a furry

 

[Jaiken]

I will never understand why the current D&D team is so opposed to sympathetic gnolls. Like, fiendish gnolls are fine as an option, but give us playable humanoid versions too, you cowards!

Something tells me that WotC is allergic to making playable dog races for whatever reason.

 

[stadi]

My favourite evil non-orc monsters are the trollocs from The Wheel of Time. They are as disturbing as it gets and have an interesting variety.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

Mail versions would be nice. A surprise package delivery for sure.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Animals are not inherently evil, and it’s debatable if they are even capable of evil.

cats snicker to themselves quietly